Supreme Court of India Judgements

46855 Judgements hosted as on 16/09/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 223(d) — Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together — Legislative intent is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness — Segregation without legally recognized grounds like distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice, is impermissible. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 — Offences relating to cheating and forgery — Anticipatory bail — Rejection challenged — Appellants, public servants at the time, accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents — High Court rejected anticipatory bail — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 223(d) — Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together — Legislative intent is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness — Segregation without legally recognized grounds like distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice, is impermissible.
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 223(d) — Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together — Legislative intent is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness — Segregation without legally recognized grounds like distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice, is impermissible.
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 — Offences relating to cheating and forgery — Anticipatory bail — Rejection challenged — Appellants, public servants at the time, accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents — High Court rejected anticipatory bail — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision
Anticipatory Bail
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 — Offences relating to cheating and forgery — Anticipatory bail — Rejection challenged — Appellants, public servants at the time, accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents — High Court rejected anticipatory bail — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision
Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity.
Constitution
Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.
Consumer
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.
Service Matters
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 12, 14 and 16 – Assam Industrial Development Corporation (A1DC) Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1992, Clauses 3 to 8 – AIDC Limited (Employees) Service Rules, 1992 – Rule 18 – Voluntary retirement – Golden hand-shake voluntary retirement scheme – An open option made available to all employees subject to fulfilment of conditions prescribed under the scheme – Option once made not to be allowed to be withdrawn

Jun 24, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 2000 SC 2769 : (2000) 87 FLR 190 : (2000) 10 JT 9 : (2000) 2 LLJ 1125 : (2000) 6 SCALE 198 : (2000) 7 SCC 390…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Appeal – Second appeal – Non-consideration of material evidence by First Appellate Court – Wrong assessment of facts – Second Appellate Court can decide true nature of a transaction on the basis of admitted facts – Interference in second appeal affirmed.

Jun 24, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 1971 SC 1049 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RADHA NATH SEAL (DEAD) BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES — Appellant Vs. HARIPADA JANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.…

Constitution

Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 – Sections 4 and 5 – Land in question – State has legislative competence to legislate on Entry 18, List II and Entry 42 List III. This power cannot be denied on the ground that it has some effect on an industry controlled under Entry 52, List I. Effect is not the same thing as subject-matter

Jun 24, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 1972 SC 2301 : (1972) 2 SCC 218 : (1973) 1 SCR 356 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THE KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PRODUCE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF…

C P C

Partnership Act, 1932 – Section – 69 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 30 Rule 4 – Promissory note – The respondents filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 58,880 on the foot of a promissory note dated April 1, 1960 to recover the principal sum of Rs. 46,380 and interest which accrued thereon – The respondent- firm is a registered partnership firm and under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, the suit is maintainable

Jun 23, 2017 sclaw

  (1996) 8 AD 562 : (1997) 1 BC 503 : (1996) 10 JT 38 : (1996) 8 SCALE 17 : (1996) 11 SCC 480 : (1996) 7 SCR 152…

Civil Cases

Partition – What manner the property are required to be enjoyed in equal shares? – On perusal of the partition deed, it is clear that the view of the High Court is not correct. It is seen that the ground floor was allotted to both the appellant and the respondent for common enjoyment and first floor was allotted to one party and second floor was allotted to another party

Jun 23, 2017 sclaw

  (1996) 8 AD 553 : (1996) 8 SCALE 243 : (1996) 11 SCC 496 : (1996) 7 SCR 812 Supp SUPREME COURT OF INDIA K.M. SRINIVASAN — Appellant Vs.…

Service Matters
Service

Validity of the charge memo – A charge memo imputing misconduct on his part was issued to respondent – The respondent filed O.A. in the Administrative Tribunal challenging the validity of the charge memo dated September 28, 1991. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated April 15, 1994 set aside the charge memo on the ground that the charges were vague

Jun 23, 2017 sclaw

  (1996) 8 AD 728 : (1997) 75 FLR 2 : (1996) 10 JT 40 : (1997) 2 LLJ 1011 : (1996) 8 SCALE 14 : (1996) 11 SCC 498…

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Section – 15(1), 46(5) – Exemption from duty – Appeal relates to the applicability of the Notifications No. 439/86 and No. 440/86, dated October 6, 1986 whereby partial exemption admissible in respect of basic customs duty and auxiliary customs duty on wood and articles of wood falling under Notifications was withdrawn

Jun 23, 2017 sclaw

  (1997) 94 ELT 454 : (1997) 11 SCC 654 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA KHATTAR ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. — Appellant Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA — Respondent ( Before :…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 223(d) — Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together — Legislative intent is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness — Segregation without legally recognized grounds like distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice, is impermissible.

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 — Offences relating to cheating and forgery — Anticipatory bail — Rejection challenged — Appellants, public servants at the time, accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents — High Court rejected anticipatory bail — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity.

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw